TATA DAVY LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisional applications 104 in number have been filed for quashing the prosecutions pending against M/s. Tata Davy Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) under section 276b of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and against its Managing Directors under section 276b read with section 278b of the said Act

(2.) There are two groups of cases pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The first group consists of 26 cases being Case No. C/ 1026/90,1027/90,1033/90 to 1042/90 pending in the 14th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate and Cases No. C/1057/90 to 1059/90, 1062190 to 1072190 pending in the 6th Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. In these cases the company accused No. 1 is being prosecuted for failure to pay the taxes deducted at source and P. Sen accused No. 2 the Managing Director of the company is being prosecuted as the principal Officer- in-charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. This group of cases has given rise to Criminal Revisions No. 2286/91 to 2310 (A) of 1991. The second group consists of 78 cases being Cases No. C/993/90 to 1025/90 and 1028/90 to 1032/90 pending in the 14th Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and Case No. C/1043/90 to 1056/ 90, 1060/90, 1061/90 and 1073/90 to 1096/90 pending in the 6th Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. In these cases the company is being prosecuted for failure to pay taxes deducted at source and Dr. P. K. Chowdhury Managing Director is being prosecuted as the principal Officer-in- charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. This group of cases has given rise to Criminal Revision No. 2420/91 to 2497 of 1991.

(3.) Mr. Guha learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has argued that as section 276b of the said Act prescribed compulsory imprisonment, the company being a justice person cannot be prosecuted and sent to jail on conviction under the said section. He has also argued that as the Managing Director is not the principal Officer of the company, he cannot be prosecuted in that capacity for non-payment of taxes deducted at source. He has also argued that though the company failed to deposit the tax deducted at source within the statutory period, still it deposited the same within the year 1988, i. e. before initiation of the instant prosecutions and that in view of the decision in the case of Hooghly Docking and Engineering Company, and the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Sri Anup Kumar v. State of West Bengal no post payment prosecution can lie against the compatly,or its principal Officer.